flycrawl_scrape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only/idempotent, API key requirement, 1 credit per successful scrape with a no-charge guarantee on 4xx/5xx and timeouts, cache TTL cost behavior, JS rendering and anti-bot handling, and structured error returns. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Section labels (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, AUTHENTICATION, RATE LIMITS, DIFFERENCE FROM) make it scannable and front-loaded with the purpose. It is longer than strictly necessary, and the format enumeration at the top is incomplete relative to the schema, but each block carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers auth, cost, rendering, error format, and sibling differentiation adequately. The only shortfall is the incomplete output-format list, leaving the agent to discover summary and html from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining the billing implication of caching (cached requests cost 0 credits), which the maxAge schema does not state. It lists markdown/json/links but omits the summary and html enum values, a small gap rather than a contradiction.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (scrape) and resource (single webpage) plus the concrete output artifacts (Markdown, JSON, links). It explicitly names the sibling flycrawl_extract and the boundary between them, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use flycrawl_extract for schema-conforming JSON fields, this tool for full readable page text. It lacks guidance on when to prefer flycrawl_search, flycrawl_crawl, or flycrawl_map for multi-page work, but the primary alternative is clearly framed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.